Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Article: Vexatious Vince Siemer

  1. #1
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8

    Article: Vexatious Vince Siemer


  2. #2
    Vexatious is defined as "harassing by means of malicious or trivial litigation".

    What is the term for the "blatant corruption" by NZ courts and judges who harass and abuse all of us on a daily basis ?

  3. #3
    No surprises here except that it has taken then court so long 101 adverse judgements. Surely this must be seen as a poor enditment for the justice process in itself and must at least point to the requirement for a major overhaul.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by flimflam View Post
    No surprises here except that it has taken then court so long 101 adverse judgements. Surely this must be seen as a poor enditment for the justice process in itself and must at least point to the requirement for a major overhaul.
    Justice Minister Judith Collins has introduced the Judicature Modernisation Bill to Parliament to make it easier to stop those like Vince Siemer, who have exposed systemic corrupt conduct by some of our judges and crown executives and who were trying to have that dealt with by the Courts.

    Rather than the A-G having to prosecute and having two High Courts Judges to consider a vexatious litigant prosecutions (which they will automatically rule in favour of to cover-up judicial corruption) District Court Judges and High Court Judges can stop the exposure of corruption, and stop the Court dealing with it, at an earlier stage. So no more 101 "vexatious" proceedings.

    Quote from official comment on the Bill:
    "Ms Collins is overseeing the largest overhaul of law underpinning New Zealand’s courts. Her Judicature Modernisation Bill aims to improve the transparency of court and judicial processes and enhance New Zealanders’ trust and confidence in the justice system and includes ... increasing courts’ options to limit litigation by vexatious litigants"

    One day a Judge will break ranks and allow a corruption claim or charge against a Judge or justice executive to be heard and then record and rule on the true facts.

    Meanwhile we ordinary New Zealanders suffer, while we wait that outcome.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Justice Minister Judith Collins has introduced the Judicature Modernisation Bill to Parliament to make it easier to stop those like Vince Siemer, who have exposed systemic corrupt conduct by some of our judges and crown executives and who were trying to have that dealt with by the Courts.

    Rather than the A-G having to prosecute and having two High Courts Judges to consider a vexatious litigant prosecutions (which they will automatically rule in favour of to cover-up judicial corruption) District Court Judges and High Court Judges can stop the exposure of corruption, and stop the Court dealing with it, at an earlier stage. So no more 101 "vexatious" proceedings.

    One day a Judge will break ranks and allow a corruption claim or charge against a Judge or justice executive to be heard and then record and rule on the true facts.
    I agree: As two District Court Judges broke ranks in 2010 and 2011 by authorising, on seven separate occasions, for a total of 33 summonses to be served on Crown Solicitors, Deputy Solicitor-Generals and the Solicitor-General for a range for charges from perverting the course of justice to acting in a criminal group for that purpose. Special footnote - those charged are all lawyers.

    The danger to the Minister of Justice and A-G [special footnote - both lawyers] is that District Court Judges appear to be the least corrupt, as they did the above. However, the High Court and Appeal Court Judges blocked the prosecutions, as the level of corruption appears to increase the higher you go up the judicial ladder.

    The Bill, if enacted, may bite both Ministers on the bum in their objective to conceal judicial and executive corruption from the public, Parliament and our international trading partners.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 07-05-2014 at 11:28 AM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    I agree: As two District Court Judges broke ranks in 2010 and 2011 by authorising, on seven separate occasions, for a total of 33 summonses to be served on Crown Solicitors, Deputy Solicitor-Generals and the Solicitor-General for a range for charges from perverting the course of justice to acting in a criminal group for that purpose. Special footnote - those charged are all lawyers.

    ....However, the High Court and Appeal Court Judges blocked the prosecutions...
    "Brockovich": In your posts earlier in the year, and last year, you stated those District Court Judges reviewed the 33 Charging Documents to ensure the evidence in support was admissible and reliable and that those Judges determined it was and that they also determined that a jury, if it accepted that evidence, could possibly convict all those who were being prosecuted.

    What evidence changed or become unreliable or what new evidence was available to the High Court and COA so those Judges would have a different opinion to the District Court Judges?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 07-05-2014 at 12:25 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    ...What evidence changed or become unreliable or what new evidence was available to the High Court and COA so those Judges would have a different opinion to the District Court Judges?
    Q. C.: As the A-G knows, no evidence changed, no evidence became unreliable and no new evidence became available.

    The only thing that changed were the Judges. From honest ones in the District Court to corrupt ones in the higher Courts. Starting with higher Court Justices Potter, Andrews and Priestley.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 07-05-2014 at 12:40 PM.

  8. #8
    Brockovich : Aren't you worried that the A-G will try to put you in jail for contempt of court for saying such bad things about judges ?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victim View Post
    Brockovich : Aren't you worried that the A-G will try to put you in jail for contempt of court for saying such bad things about judges ?
    No, because the absolute defence of ‘the truth’ is available to me. The A-G knows that, and if he had a go at me (for contempt of court for saying these bad things about Judges) he also knows a jury will have the truth to deliberate on and that the truth would be across the front page of the NZ Herald and item one on the six o’clock TV news.

    Judicial and executive corruption cannot stand that exposure, so the A-G will remain silent even though it is his official role to protect judges from, what the uninformed would see as, improper and unfair public criticism of Judges.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    "...the truth would be across the front page of the NZ Herald and item one on the six o’clock TV news."

    Has it happened?
    No, and it won't via the A-G. That is why I can say a Judge is corrupt and name them (but only if he or she is so), because I have absolute immunity from the A-G to do so.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •